Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging indicates brain tissue alterations in patients after liver transplantation.

PURPOSE: To investigate cerebral microstructural alterations in patients treated with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) and a cross-sectional study design.
METHODS: Cerebral qMRI was performed in 85 patients in a median 10 years after OLT compared to 31 healthy controls. Patients were treated with different dosages of CNI or with a CNI-free immunosuppression (CNI-free: n = 19; CNI-low: n = 36; CNI-standard: n = 30). T2-, T2*- and T2'- relaxation times, as well as apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) were measured in brain gray and white matter by using the regions of interest method.
RESULTS: In comparison to controls, patients revealed significantly increased T2, T2*, T2', ADC and reduced FA, predominantly in the frontal white matter, indicating microstructural brain alterations represented by increased free water (increased T2), reduced neuronal metabolism (increased T2') and a lower degree of spatial organization of the nervous fibers (reduced FA). CNI-low and CNI-free patients showed more alterations than CNI-standard patients. Analysis of their history revealed impairment of kidney function while under standard CNI dose suggesting that these patients may be more vulnerable to toxic CNI side-effects.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the individual sensitivity to toxic side effects should be considered when choosing an appropriate immunosuppressive regimen in patients after liver transplantation.

Introduction

Liver transplantation requires life-long immunosuppression. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, are the most important agents in the immunosuppressive therapy regime besides mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), mTor inhibitor everolimus and steroids for the prevention of graft rejection in patients after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) [1]. The survival rates after OLT have increased significantly since the implementation of CNI into the therapy regimen [2]. Consequently, the long-term side effects of maintenance immunosuppressive therapy have received more attention lately. These may impact the quality of life and contribute to long-term morbidity and mortality of the patients. Numerous studies reported on renal dysfunction, malignancy and cardiovascular disease related to long-term CNI therapy, e.g. an increased risk of chronic kidney disease of up to 28%, a cardiovascular disease events rate of 24% and a cumulative cancer incidence of 13–26% at about ten years after transplantation as reviewed by Aberg et al.[3]. Furthermore, neurological complications including confusion, hallucinations, somnolence, stupor or seizures were observed in one third of the patients in the early course after OLT and were attributed to the neurotoxicity of CNI [4-7]. By using cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) increased ventricle volumes and progressive focal white matter lesions were observed in patients 6 to 9 years after OLT [8]. These findings indicate possible long-term side effects of CNI with impact on brain tissue in patients after OLT.

However, more sophisticated methods are needed to get further insight into the pathomechanism of CNI neurotoxicity. It has been reported that quantitative MR measurements are sensitive to certain pathological or physiological microstructural alterations that are usually invisible in conventional MRI [9-11]. With quantitative MRI (qMRI) measurements, such as MR relaxometry, the relaxation processes of the brain tissue can be quantified. For example, the transverse relaxation due to spin-spin interactions characterized by the irreversible (T2), the susceptibility effects of local magnetic field inhomogeneity characterized by the reversible relaxation time (T2’) or both mechanisms together characterized by apparent (T2*) relaxation times, with the relation of 1/T2* = 1/T2 + 1/T2’, can be quantified. Moreover, the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the fractional anisotropy (FA), derived from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), measure the proton diffusional activity within the tissue structures. The variations of these quantitative parameters reflect alterations in the molecular environment within the brain tissue. Thus, these parameters provide information about microstructural alterations that are often invisible in conventional MRI [9-13]. A first relaxometry measurement in patients after OLT has been reported by Herynek et al., who found increased T2 relaxation times in the thalamus and white matter in patients up to 15 years after OLT. The authors attributed this to damage caused by permanent exposure to immunosuppressants [14]. Therefore, we conducted this single center observational study to investigate brain functional, metabolic and microstructural alterations associated with long-term effects of CNI treatment in different doses in patients after OLT by using combined psychometric assessment and neuroimaging methods. Here we mainly report about the results obtained by using qMRI including MR relaxometry and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), while the detailed results of psychometric testing and morphological MRI have been reported elsewhere [15]. We hypothesized that microstructural brain tissue alterations measured by qMRI are associated with the administered dose of long-term CNI therapy in patients after OLT.

Methods

The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee at Hannover Medical School. Informed consent was obtained from all patients and control subjects. All measurements were performed in accordance to the ethical guidelines of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (revised in 2008). None of the transplant donors were from a vulnerable population and all donors or next of kin provided written informed consent that was freely given.

Subjects

The patients were recruited for the study as previously described in detail [15]. In summary, all patients treated in the liver transplantation outpatient clinic of Hannover Medical School were screened for suitability. All included subjects were enrolled between February 2014 and February 2016. Inclusion criteria for patients were an age of between eighteen and eighty years, a time interval of at least two years since liver transplantation and a stable immunosuppressive therapy of at least two years. Exclusion criteria were: an age of under eighteen years at the time of transplantation, an additional transplant of organs other than the liver, re-transplantation more than three months after primary transplantation, pre-existing neurological or psychiatric diseases that might affect brain structure or function, as for example a history of stroke, neurodegenerative diseases or depression, contraindications for MRI, a daily intake of prescribed drugs (besides CNI and steroids) such as antidepressants or antipsychotic medication which might affect brain function or microstructure of the brain, acute organ rejection or acute infection and decompensated heart-, liver- or kidney function.

To address potential sources of bias, the patients of the different groups were adjusted to age, sex, education and time since transplantation. According to the design of the study it was intended to include 30 patients per group. A total 91 patients were enrolled. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria 85 patients finally took part in the study. All patients had been treated with a standard dose of CNI (CNI-standard) for a median 5 years after OLT. Later, those patients who showed an impairment of kidney function as a side effect of CNI therapy either received a reduced dose of CNI (CNI-low) or other medication for immunosuppression (CNI-free). This alteration of the treatment regimen took place in a median 4 years after OLT in the CNI low dose group and in the CNI-free group, respectively. To investigate a long-term impact of CNI therapy with varied doses after OLT, the patients were divided into three groups according to their CNI medication at the time of assessment (for details see Pflugrad et al., 2018 [15]): patients with an immunosuppressive therapy regime without CNI (group 1, CNI-free, n = 19), patients with reduced dose CNI therapy (group 2, CNI-low = stable tacrolimus blood trough level <5 μg/l or ciclosporine A blood through level <50 μg/l, n = 36) and patients with standard dose CNI therapy (group 3, CNI-standard = stable tacrolimus blood trough level ≥5 μg/l or ciclosporine A blood trough level ≥50 μg/l, n = 30).

In addition, thirty-one—healthy controls, adjusted according to sex, age and education, served as reference group (group 4). In comparison to the study published by Pflugrad et al. [15], the present paper has one patient less in group 1 (CNI-free) and two subjects less in group 4 (controls) due to incomplete qMRI examinations and one patient more in group 2 (CNI-low), who was not considered in the analysis of the psychometric results due to missing data. Thus, all patients except one from the CNI-low group considered for this analysis were part of the analysis described in [15].

Clinical assessment

Each subject underwent a neurological examination. Further, age, sex, underlying liver disease, presence of arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), hypercholesterolemia, a history of hepatic encephalopathy, the grade of hepatic encephalopathy at OLT, a history of post-transplant encephalopathy (neurological complications after OLT including disorientation, confusion, hallucinations, cognitive dysfunction, and seizures due to metabolic changes), years since OLT and CNI dosages as well as CNI trough levels of each visit at the Transplant Outpatient Clinic of Hannover Medical School were documented. For neuropsychological testing, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) was used [16-18].

MRI examination

MR examinations of all subjects were performed at 3T (Verio; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) by using a 12-channel phased array head coil. The data were acquired with two sequences as described by Eylers et al. [19]—a transverse T2 weighted turbo spin echo (TSE) sequence with three echoes (triple TE) (TR/TE = 6640/8.7/70/131 ms; 150° flip angle; 256 x 208 matrix; 1 x 1 x 3 mm3 voxel size, acceleration factor 2), and a transverse T2* weighted gradient (GRE) echo sequence with triple TE (TR/TE = 1410/6.42/18.42/30.42 ms; 20°flip angle; 256 x 208 matrix; 1 x 1 x 3 mm3 voxel size; acceleration factor 2), and an additional transversal single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (EPI) sequence for DTI with 12 motion-probing gradients (b = 0, 1500 s/mm2).

Data processing and analysis

T2 weighted images were reviewed for structural abnormalities by two senior neuroradiologists. As previously described [19], parameter maps of the relaxation times T2 and T2* were obtained on-the-fly by the MR console with an extended image reconstruction, provided by the manufacturer, with monoexponential fitting to the signal-intensity decay curves of the triple TE data acquired with TSE and with GRE, respectively. ADC and FA maps were obtained from the EPI data. All the parameter maps were transferred to a work station and used for region of interest (ROI) measurements. Numeric values of qMRI parameters were measured from corresponding parameter maps in seventeen brain regions of interest (ROIs) in each brain hemisphere (examples are shown in Fig 1): 11 ROIs in cerebrum—in the frontal white matter (fWM) between the middle frontal gyrus and the frontal horn of lateral ventricle, the putamen, the pallidum, the parietal white matter (pWM) at the middle posterior gyrus, the caudate nucleus, the thalamus and the occipital grey matter, the anterior (GCC) and the posterior portion of the corpus callosum near the central axis, the semioval center above the lateral ventricle, the subcortical motor area in the hand knob region; 2 ROIs in the brainstem, the ventral and dorsal part of the pons; Four ROIs in the cerebellum—in the cerebellar peduncle, the cerebellar posterior lobe, as well as the superior and inferior pole of the cerebellar posterior lobe. All ROIs were carefully drawn on a single section of corresponding parameter maps as a circle with an area of 15 mm2 within each brain structure, according to anatomic landmarks to minimize partial volume effects. The ROI measurements were performed using ImageJ software [20]. The measured data were controlled by quality criteria, i.e. only those values with a signal to noise ratio (SNR = the mean value over the ROI divided by the standard deviation) > 5 were considered for further analysis. To eliminate deviations of the signal intensity due to lateralization of brain function, the measured values from paired right and left ROIs were averaged. The values of the relaxation times T2 and T2* were measured in milliseconds (ms), and the T2’ values were calculated according to the relationship 1/T2’ = 1/T2*-1/T2, thus, also with the unit ms. The parameter ADC was measured in the unit mm2s-1. The parameter FA was measured only in white matter ROIs and is without unit.

Fig 1

Localization of regions of interest.

Quantitative parameter maps of the T2 map (A1-A5) the T2* map (B), the ADC map (C) and the FA map (D) are displayed. Filled circles (1–13) represent examples of ROI location measured in each hemisphere: frontal white matter (fWM, 1), putamen (2), parietal white matter (pWM, 3), caudate nucleus (4), thalamus (5), genu (GCC, 6) and splenium of corpus callosum (7), centrum semiovale (8), brainstem ventral (9) and dorsal (10), subcortical motor area in the hand knob region (11), cerebellar white matter (12) and cerebellar posterior lobe (13).

Statistical analysis

The data were tested for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk-test. The two-sided t-test was performed to compare the qMRI parameter values obtained from all patients (patient collective) to those of the controls. Corrections for multiple comparisons were performed by using the false-discovery rate (FDR) method with a desired false-discovery rate of 0.05.

One-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) was used to compare the values of different groups. In cases with an overall p < 0.05, Dunnett's test at α = 0.05 significance level was used for comparisons of each patient group with the control group. It is designed to hold the error rate at or below α when performing multiple comparisons of each treatment group with the control group [21]. Continuous abnormally distributed parameters were compared using the Kruskall-Wallis-Test and the Mann-Whitney U test. The Chi-squared test was used for testing categorical variables.

The results with a p-value below 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. Those with 0.05 < p < 0.08 were considered as not significant but showing a tendency towards the tested alteration. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, Version 24 (IBM, Armonk, New York).

Results

Patient characteristics

The study groups were adjusted according to age, sex and education. Detailed characteristics of the patients and controls are given in Table 1, with minor modifications in comparison to the ones presented by Pflugrad et al. [15] because of slightly changed sample sizes as mentioned above. The comparison of GFR values showed that, at the time of recruitment, the patients in group 1 (CNI-free) had the most limited kidney function with the lowest mean GFR value, the patients in group 2 (CNI-low) had a less limited kidney function with a moderate GFR value, while the patients in group 3 (CNI-standard) had the best kidney function of all patient groups (p = 0.007). This observation is not surprising since the change of the immunosuppressive therapy from standard dose to low dose or CNI free therapy had been made predominantly because of increasing impairment of kidney function under standard dose CNI therapy [15].

Table 1

Patient characteristics.

n = 116	CNI free (group 1) n = 19	CNI low (group 2) n = 36	CNI standard (group 3) n = 30	Control (group 4) n = 31	p	p1vs31
Age (years) mean ±SD	60.74 (±9.1)	59.67 (±9.4)	54.8 (±10.1)	58.48 (±7.8)	0.093
Sex (male/female)	14 (74%)/5	24 (67%)/12	18 (60%)/12	15 (48%)/16	0.277
Years after OLT median (IQ range)	11 (3)	10 (7)	10 (9)	n. a.	0.191
History of hepatic encephalopathy (+/-)	4 (21%)15	4 (11%)/32	4 (13%)/26	n. a.	0.595
Grade of hepatic encephalopathy at OLT	1 n = 33 n = 1	1 n = 22 n = 13 n = 1	1 n = 23 n = 2	n.a.	0.712
Post-transplant encephalopathy (+/-)	2 (11%)/17	4 (11%)/32	7 (23%)/23	n. a.	0.314
Arterial hypertension (+/-)	12 (63%)/7	23 (64%)/13	17 (57%)/13	11 (35%)/20	0.093
Diabetes mellitus (+/-)	4 (21%)/15	8 (22%)/28	4 (13%)/26	1 (3%)/30	0.136
Hypercholesterolemia (+/-)	7 (37%)/12	5 (14%)/31	7 (23%)/23	3 (10%)/28	0.083
GFR mean ±SD in ml/min	63.21 (±19)	74.36 (±23.96)	84.27 (±24.23)	n. a.	0.010	0.007
Aetiology of liver disease (n)
Hepatitis B	3	4	6	n. a.
Hepatitis C	1	0	0	n. a.
Autoimmune (AIH, PBC, PSC)	3	16	11	n. a.
Alcohol	2	1	1	n. a.
Acute liver failure	1	2	2	n. a.
others	9	13	10	n. a.

1 Tukey post-hoc testing of group 1 vs group 3. n, number; CNI, calcineurin inhibitors; SD, standard deviation; OLT, orthotopic liver transplantation; IQ range, interquartile range; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; AIH, autoimmune hepatitis; PBC, Primary biliary cholangitis; PSC, primary sclerosing cholangitis

In addition to CNI, mainly MMF and prednisolone served as immunosuppressive agents in the presented patients. The therapy regimen included MMF in sixteen patients from group 1 (CNI-free), in eighteen patients from group 2 (CNI-low) and in eight patients from group 3 (CNI-standard). Prednisolone was used in fourteen cases from group 1, in nine cases from group 2 and in ten cases from group 3. Three patients from group 1 took sirolimus, two patients took everolimus and one patient from group 2 took azathioprine.

Significant complications had occurred during OLT surgery or while on the intensive care unit in 44 (52%) of 85 patients. The patients with significant complications such as a need for additional surgery, transplant failure or infection were equally distributed between the three patient groups: Eighteen (60%) of the 30 patients of the CNI standard group (number of complications: one n = 12, two n = 3, three or more n = 3), sixteen (44%) of the 36 patients of the CNI low group (number of complications: one n = 8, two n = 6, three n = 2) and ten (53%) of the 19 patients of the CNI free group (number of complications: one n = 6, two n = 2, three n = 2) had had significant complications after OLT.

Cognitive function

Although the subject sample sizes were slightly different, the RBANS results are similar to those previously described by Pflugrad et al.[15]: ANOVA showed significant group differences in the RBANS score of visuospatial and constructional ability (p = 0.005). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed significantly worse results in group 2 (CNI-low, 89 vs. 112, p = 0.007), and also in group 3 (CNI-standard, 96 vs 112, p = 0.026) compared to controls. The patients in group 1 (CNI free) also showed lower scores than the healthy controls but, however, the level of significance was missed. Moreover, the patients in group 2 (CNI-low) revealed significantly worse results than the controls (92 vs. 103, p = 0.008) in the RBANS total scale (including the results of all sub-categories: immediate memory, visuospatial and constructional ability, language, attention and delayed memory), while there was no significant difference between the other two patient groups and controls (S1 Table). The twelve patients (14%) with a history of HE before OLT did not differ from the patients without a history of HE (n = 73) in the RBANS with the exception of the RBANS subdomain language. Here patients with HE performed significantly worse than those without (91.8±14.8 vs 101.0±11.9, p = 0.02).

Quantitative MRI measurements

Comparison between the patient collective and the controls

The Two-sided t-test revealed significant differences between the patient collective and the controls in the measured values T2, T2*, T2’, ADC and FA in certain brain areas as shown in Table 2: In comparison to the controls higher values of relaxation times T2, T2* and T2’ were found in patients in the fWM (p = 0.002 for T2, p = 0.001 for T2*, and p = 0.011 for T2’). Although higher values of T2, T2* and T2’ were also observed in the patients compared to controls in the GCC and subcortical gray matter (pallidum, putamen, and thalamus) the level of significance was not reached (Table 2 and S2 Table). At the same time, higher ADC values in pWM (p = 0.001) were found in patients. Additionally, patients revealed lower FA values in fWM (p = 0.00005). Several patients’ data were not considered for analysis due to minor quality according to the data quality criteria (SNR > 5). Missing data is indicated by the sample size displayed as N given in Table 2. The resulting smaller sub-groups of the patients kept the same characteristics concerning sex, age and education. Overall, in comparison to the controls the patient collective showed significant regional brain alterations. Most changes occurred in the fWM (higher T2, T2*, T2’ values and lower FA values and less in pWM (higher ADC values).

Table 2

Significant results of two-sided t-tests for parameter values measured in patients and controls.

Brain2 region	Patients			Controls			p
	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD
	T2 (ms)
fWM	85	110.36	7.95	31	105.07	7.22	0.002
	T2* (ms)
fWM	85	44.26	4.90	31	40.83	4.91	0.001
	T2' (ms)
fWM	85	74.81	13.03	31	67.75	12.87	0.011
	ADC (x10-6 mm2s-1)
pWM	85	709.16	46.01	31	678.45	37.99	0.001
	FA
fWM	69	0.351	0.056	31	0.406	0.066	0.000

1 Corrections for multiple comparisons were performed by using the false-discovery rate (FDR) method, with the desired false-discovery rate to 0.05.

2 Brain regions were the frontal WM (fWM) and the parietal white matter (pWM). Several patients’ data were not considered for the parameter FA analysis due to minor quality according to data quality criteria (SNR > 5). n, number; SD, standard deviation

Patients with a history of HE before liver transplantation did not differ significantly from those without a history of HE concerning all measured qMRI data.

Comparison of each patient group to controls

The One-way ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences concerning qMRI parameter measurements across the patient groups in reference to the control group. The significant results of the ANOVA and post hoc Dunnett’s tests are presented in Table 3, also including not significant results in brain regions where significant alterations were observed in the whole patient collective (Table 2): In comparison to the control group, patients in group 1 (CNI-free) and group 2 (CNI-low) showed increased T2 (p = 0.004 for group 1 and p = 0.030 for group 2) and T2* values (p = 0.018 for group 1 and p = 0.011 for group 2) in the fWM. In GCC, a tendency of increased T2 values in both group 1 (CNI-free, p = 0.055) and group 2 (CNI-low, p = 0.075), was observed, with a significantly increased T2* value (p = 0.020) being found only in CNI-low patients. No significant differences of T2’ values were found between patient groups and controls, but a tendency of increased T2’ values in fWM was observed in group 2 (p = 0.059 for overall test and 0.070 for post hoc test). Moreover, the patients in all three groups revealed a significantly lower value of FA in fWM (p = 0.001–0.020). Concerning ADC measurements, the patients in group 2 (CNI-low) showed an increased value in pWM (p = 0.001).

Table 3

Significant results and results showing a tendency of tested alterations derived from ANOVA analysis on parameter values measured in different patient groups and the control group,.

Brain3 region	Para-meter	Group 1(CNI-free)			Group 2(CNI-low)			Group 3(CNI-standard)			Group 4(Controls)			ANOVA	Dunnett post-hoc testing4
		N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	p	p1vs4	p2vs4	p3vs4
fWM	T2	19	112.8	10.4	36	110.4	7.5	30	108.7	6.4	31	105.1	7.2	0.004	0.004	0.030
GCC	T2	19	100.2	7.6	36	99.2	7.9	30	95.7	5.5	30	95.1	5.6	0.014	0.055	0.075
fWM	T2*	19	45.1	5.5	36	44.6	5.0	30	43.3	4.4	31	40.8	4.9	0.006	0.018	0.011
GCC	T2*	19	40.6	6.9	36	41.3	4.8	30	39.2	6.0	30	37.3	4.3	0.026		0.020
fWM	T2'	19	76.2	13.8	36	75.7	13.0	30	72.9	12.8	31	67.7	12.9	0.059		0.070
pWM	ADC	19	706.4	50.1	36	720.6	47.9	30	697.1	38.5	31	678.4	38.0	0.002		0.001
fWM	FA	16	0.351	0.042	30	0.347	0.056	23	0.357	0.066	31	0.406	0.067	0.001	0.019	0.001	0.020

1 In cases of an overall p < 0.05, the Dunnett's test at α = 0.05 significance level was used for comparisons of each patient group with the control group. Cases with 0.05 p < 0.08 were considered as not significant but showing a tendency towards the tested alteration.

2 The non-significant results in brain regions were also included where the significant alterations in the patient collective were observed (see Table 2).

3 The selected brain regions are the frontal WM (fWM), the anterior part of the corpus callosum (GCC), and the parietal white matter (pWM).

4 Results of the Dunnett's test of group 1 vs group 4 (p1vs4), group 2 vs group 4 (p2vs4) and group 3 vs group 4 (p3vs4). n, number; CNI, calcineurin inhibitors

Discussion

This observational study investigated 85 patients in a median 10 years after OLT under different CNI treatment regimens and 31 healthy controls by using qMRI measurements in multiple brain areas. We found significant differences between the patient collective and the controls as well as between different patient groups and the control group in several brain areas.

The comparison between the patient collective and controls showed significantly increased brain T2, T2* and T2’ values in patients in the frontal white matter. Also, higher, though not significant, values in the genu of corpus callosum and the subcortical gray matter (pallidum, putamen, and thalamus) were found. The observed T2 alterations in the patients are consistent with those reported by Herynek et al., who found increased T2 relaxation times in the white matter and in the thalamus in patients up to 15 years after OLT [14]. The parameter T2 is sensitive to microstructural variations in tissue like changes of the free water content, i.e. reduced free water corresponds to shortened T2 in the maturing brain of infants [22,23], while pathological demyelination or neurodegeneration resulting in increased free water content is associated with prolonged T2 [9,13,24]. Consequently, the observed increase of T2 in our patients may therefore reflect an increase of free water in the fWM. To our knowledge this study is the first to estimate brain reversible T2’ values in patients after OLT. The parameter T2’ reflects changes in the molecular level that influence brain local magnetic field homogeneity, e.g. those caused by a varied local concentration of deoxyhemoglobin [25,26]. An increase of T2’ in frontal normal appearing white matter (NAWM) of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) was explained by decreased oxygen extraction due to reduced metabolism. This assumption was consistent with observations in PET studies [27,28]. An increase of T2’ in association with a decrease of neuronal metabolism was also observed in the splenium of the corpus callosum in a normal aging human brain [19]. Accordingly, the present observation of increased T2’ in the fWM may indicate a reduction of metabolism in this brain area of our patients. Moreover, the alteration of T2’ values seems to be associated with the brain function of the patients.

In addition, the patient collective revealed significantly higher ADC values in the parietal white matter and lower FA values in the frontal white matter compared to the controls. ADC indicates the movement scale of water molecule diffusion and the FA measures the degree of spatial organization of the nervous fiber structures [29]. Decreased ADC values were reported in tissues with high cellularity, e.g. tumors or cytotoxic edema [30,31], while relatively higher ADC values were seen in tissues with chronic tissue injury. For example, chronic hypoxia in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome led to higher ADC values in the frontal white matter and the lentiform nucleus compared to the healthy controls. This observation was explained by increased free water due to damages of myelin and axons in a state of chronic hypoxia [32]. Filippi et al. reported that the average lesion mean diffusivity (equivalent to ADC) was higher and the average lesion FA was lower than in the corresponding quantities of NAWM in patients with MS, while in NAWM of these patients the mean diffusivity (equivalent to ADC) was higher and the average lesion FA was lower compared to healthy controls. The findings were interpreted as severe tissue damage in MS lesions and microstructural changes in the NAWM of MS patients [33]. In line with these observations the present findings of higher ADC values in the parietal white matter of the patients may also be attributed to increased free water and the lower FA values in frontal white matter may be attributed to altered spatial organization of the nervous fiber structures.

Comparing the results given in Tables 2 and 3, it is clear that significantly reduced FA values in the fWM were not only present in the whole patient collective (Table 2) but also in each of the three patient groups (Table 3). In contrast, the significant increase of T2’ that was observed in the whole patient group had no correspondence in the different patient subgroups. This probably indicates that these alterations were weaker than the FA alterations in the fWM. The further observed qMRI alterations in the patient collective were mainly found in group 2 (CNI-low), i.e. increased T2* values in the GCC and increased ADC values in the pWM, or in group 2 (CNI-low) and group 1 (CNI-free) together, i.e. increased T2 values in the fWM and the GCC, increased T2* values in the fWM. In comparison to the control group the patient groups receiving different doses of CNI revealed varied grades of deviations in the measured parameters in addition to those found in all groups (lower FA values in frontal white matter). These observations indicate that, while patients in all three patient groups revealed altered spatial organization of the nervous fiber structures in the fWM (indicated by decreased FA values), the patients treated with CNI low dose showed the most significant brain microstructural variations (in fWM, GCC, and pWM). The patients without CNI therapy revealed additional significant brain microstructural variations (in fWM) but, however, less than the CNI low group. Patients treated with CNI standard dose did not have additional brain microstructural alterations. The observation that the patients treated with CNI low dose show the most extensive microstructural alterations is consistent with the psychometric results which showed that only the patients in group 2 (CNI-low) revealed significantly worse results regarding RBANS total scale (including the sub-categories immediate memory, visuospatial and constructional ability, language, attention and delayed memory) than the healthy controls.

First it was somewhat surprising that not the patients receiving a standard dose of CNI but those receiving a lower dose of CNI revealed the most microstructural alterations in the brain and showed cognitive impairment compared to the controls. However, considering that all patients were initially treated with a standard dose of CNI in a median of four years before the applied dose of CNI was reduced (CNI-low) or stopped (CNI-free), these observations might be interpreted as follows: The patients receiving OLT may react differently to the toxic side effects accompanied by CNI therapy. Some of the patients, especially those of patient group 3, who were continually treated with the CNI standard dose since transplantation, seemed to be quite resistant to the toxic side effects. Some of the patients, especially those of patient groups 1 (CNI-free) and 2 (CNI-low), however, appeared to be vulnerable to the toxic side effects of CNI. The initially applied standard CNI dose induced not only the initially observed kidney damage, but possibly also alterations of brain microstructures, which seem to be long-lasting. However, if CNI therapy was stopped, these brain alterations might recover partly as indicated by our patients with CNI free therapy who revealed less additional brain alterations than the patients treated with a low dose of CNI. Despite the fact that at the moment the determinative factors behind the different behavior of toxic side effects of CNI in patients remains unclear, our observations suggest to be cautious treating those patients who show any CNI side effects during therapy.

The CNI standard group and the CNI low dose and CNI free group differed significantly with regard to their GFR at the time of the study. Thus, it is necessary to discuss possible effects of impaired kidney function upon the MRI results, since alterations of cognitive function as well as brain metabolism have been described for patients with chronic kidney disease. However, in this study, all patient groups had a mean GFR above 60ml/min which underlines that the patients had, if at all, only slight kidney impairment. Furthermore, patients receiving the CNI free immunosuppressive therapy had the most impaired kidney function at the time of CNI dosage change and at study inclusion, while patients in group 2 (CNI-low), who had a higher GFR that did not significantly differ from that of group 3 (standard dose), showed most of the significant tissue changes. Thus, it can be assumed that the impact of kidney function on our measurements is less critical than that of the assumed vulnerability towards CNI toxicity.

The results of our study are limited by the fact that other immunosuppressants, which were consistently taken by the patients in this study, may have had an impact on the qMRI results of the cerebral tissue. Furthermore, the standard immunosuppressive therapy regime after OLT includes CNI and therefore no group of patients with CNI-free immunosuppressive therapy from the first day after transplantation was available. Other limitations are that this was a single-center observational study with limited transferability to other centers and unfortunately no data from before OLT was available from our patients. Finally, the sample size limits the statistical power and a statement on clinical relevance.

In conclusion, this study showed altered spatial organization of the nervous fiber structures and a trend of reduced metabolism in the frontal white matter in patients after OLT, regardless of the used immunosuppressive therapy regimen. Patients who had developed severely impaired kidney function under initial treatment with standard dose CNI revealed additional brain microstructural alterations, especially if the CNI therapy was continued using a lower dose of CNI and not replaced.

Results of the cognitive function testing with the RBANS.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Results of two-sided t-tests for parameter values measured in patients and controls.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

6 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-14760

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging indicates brain tissue alterations in patients after liver transplantation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ding,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In addition to addressing the comments raised by the Reviewers, please also address/respond to the following points:

1. Please review the STROBE statement and ensure that all points have been addressed (https://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home). As of now, there are a number of aspects that are missing (e.g. reporting of time frame of enrolled participants, addressing potential sources of bias).

2. Please avoid the use of "Results not shown" (See the following for link for additional details: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability)

3. The word ‘gender’ is used throughout the manuscript (in addition to 'sex'). Usually, “sex” (the biological designation) is meant. “Gender” is the social construct and is rarely relevant in neurologic disease. Please revise the text to use “sex” rather than “gender” throughout.

4. Were there any changes to the MRI scanner (e.g. hardware, software) throughout the course of the study? If so, were patients and controls equally distributed before/after updates?

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 14 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Niels Bergsland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found some text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, on which you are an author: Eylers, Vanessa V., et al. "Detection of normal aging effects on human brain metabolite concentrations and microstructure with whole-brain MR spectroscopic imaging and quantitative MR imaging." American Journal of Neuroradiology 37.3 (2016): 447-454. The re-use of text from a previous publication may have implications for the copyright or license that applies to the published article. To avoid any concerns in this respect, we would recommend that you revise the manuscript, particularly outside the methods section, to either remove any text overlap where possible/appropriate, or to clearly indicate that the text reproduces information already reported in detail elsewhere (e.g. “As described in detail previously [ref],…”) citing the relevant sources.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere: "Neither the submitted material nor portions thereof have been published previously or are under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Preliminary results of this study have been presented at the International Society for Hepatic Encephalopathy and Nitrogen Metabolism (ISHEN) 2017 in New Delhi, India, as a poster. The according abstract has been published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology in February 2017."

Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dr Goede et al. present a study using quantitative MRI for neurological assessment after liver transplantation (LT). They compare, more than 2 years after LT patients under normal dosage of CNI, patients under lowered dosage of CNI and patients without CNI.

Here are some comments:

- page 12, how were "pre-existing neurological or psychiatric diseases" defined ?

- page 12, how was "regular intake of drugs (besides CNI and steroids) which might affect brain function" defined?

- were possible per-operative or ICU complications taken in account ?

- the cause of reducing the dosage of CNIs could constitute a bias. This is however discussed in discussion

- page 13, maybe a comparison to patients that underwent renal grafting and being under CNIs would have be valuable

- page 15, there is a figure legend included in the manuscript but there is no figure

- it seems that the present study constitute an ancillary study of the study previously described in ref 15. Please, if it is so, clearly explain that the patients are the same that those described in a previous study

- page 18, were RBANS profiles different in patients that had previous to LT bouts of hepatic encephalopathy ?

- table 2 is difficult to understand since only significant results are presented

- "p14", "p24" "p34" are difficult to understand. Please provide are clearer way to describe this comparution: "p1v4" maybe ?

- the figure 1 is not clear. Please add in the A part, a A1 and so on in order to be more precise

-

Reviewer #2: This is a very important manuscript that describes concerning long term disorders that are secondary to immunosuppression on patients after liver transplant. Well designed study and methods are sound and clear for the results.

The only aspect that I see that is needing is the degree of liver decompensation prior to liver transplant. The other factor that I think is missing is the effect of decompensated liver disease in the brain and different areas of the central nervous system. If there is predisposition for this deleterious effect of the CNI in a previously injured CNS.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nicolas WEISS, MD, PhD

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

19 Aug 2019

Dear Professor Bergsland, dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for the critical review of our manuscript. In the following we would like to respond to each of the comments.

Academic editor:

1. Please review the STROBE statement and ensure that all points have been addressed (https://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home). As of now, there are a number of aspects that are missing (e.g. reporting of time frame of enrolled participants, addressing potential sources of bias).

Answer: We reviewed our manuscript according to the STROBE statement for observational studies. The missing aspects were added to the manuscript. Please excuse that we do not list all changes here as they are scattered throughout the manuscript.

2. Please avoid the use of "Results not shown" (See the following for link for additional details: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability)

Answer: Thank you for the advice. The missing data is now shown in supplemental table 2.

3. The word ‘gender’ is used throughout the manuscript (in addition to 'sex'). Usually, “sex” (the biological designation) is meant. “Gender” is the social construct and is rarely relevant in neurologic disease. Please revise the text to use “sex” rather than “gender” throughout.

Answer: Thank you for the advice. The word ‘gender’ was changed to ‘sex’ throughout the manuscript.

4. Were there any changes to the MRI scanner (e.g. hardware, software) throughout the course of the study? If so, were patients and controls equally distributed before/after updates?

Answer: During the course of the study no changes concerning hardware or software were made to the MRI scanner. All subjects underwent the same study protocol.

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Answer: We changed our manuscript accordingly.

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found some text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, on which you are an author: Eylers, Vanessa V., et al. "Detection of normal aging effects on human brain metabolite concentrations and microstructure with whole-brain MR spectroscopic imaging and quantitative MR imaging." American Journal of Neuroradiology 37.3 (2016): 447-454. The re-use of text from a previous publication may have implications for the copyright or license that applies to the published article. To avoid any concerns in this respect, we would recommend that you revise the manuscript, particularly outside the methods section, to either remove any text overlap where possible/appropriate, or to clearly indicate that the text reproduces information already reported in detail elsewhere (e.g. “As described in detail previously [ref],…”) citing the relevant sources.

Answer: You are right. Parts of the MR examination and data processing of our study are similar to the MR processing described in the manuscript "Detection of normal aging effects on human brain metabolite concentrations and microstructure with whole-brain MR spectroscopic imaging and quantitative MR imaging”. We have added this information to the methods section of the manuscript and have included a reference (page 10).

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar.

Answer: The manuscript was reviewed to improve the language use, spelling and grammar with the help of Andreas Manthey who has a university degree in English language studies.

4. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere: "Neither the submitted material nor portions thereof have been published previously or are under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Preliminary results of this study have been presented at the International Society for Hepatic Encephalopathy and Nitrogen Metabolism (ISHEN) 2017 in New Delhi, India, as a poster. The according abstract has been published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology in February 2017."

Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

Answer: Preliminary results of this study were presented as a poster at the 17th International Society for Hepatic Encephalopathy and Nitrogen Metabolism (ISHEN) 2017 in New Delhi, India. Only the according abstract was published:

Goede L. et al., Neurotoxic Side Effects of Calcineurin Inhibitors in Patients After Liver Transplantation: Preliminary Results of a Quantitative MRI Study of the Brain, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology, Volume 7, Supplement 1, February 2017, Pages S31-S32.

The abstract was not peer-reviewed. This work does not constitute a dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dr Goede et al. present a study using quantitative MRI for neurological assessment after liver transplantation (LT). They compare, more than 2 years after LT patients under normal dosage of CNI, patients under lowered dosage of CNI and patients without CNI.

Here are some comments:

- page 12, how were "pre-existing neurological or psychiatric diseases" defined ?

Answer: Pre-existing neurological or psychiatric diseases are defined as any neurological or psychiatric disease that might affect brain structure or function. At the time of inclusion in our study all patients were asked for diagnosed diseases and daily intake of medication that indicated a neurological or psychiatric disease. Furthermore, the records of the patients were screened for neurological or psychiatric diseases. If a neurological or psychiatric disease was found the patient was excluded from the study. To clarify this important point we have added a sentence to the methods section of the manuscript (page 6):

“…that might affect brain structure or function, as for example a history of stroke, neurodegenerative diseases or depression, …”

- page 12, how was "regular intake of drugs (besides CNI and steroids) which might affect brain function" defined?

Answer: Drugs like antidepressants or antipsychotic medication were considered to affect brain function. All patients were asked which medication they take on a daily and the records of the patients were checked. If a drug that might affect brain function was identified the patient was excluded from the study. To clarify this exclusion criterion we have added a sentence to the methods section of the manuscript (page 6):

“…a daily intake of prescribed drugs (besides CNI and steroids) such as antidepressants or antipsychotic medication which might affect brain function or microstructure of the brain, …”

- were possible per-operative or ICU complications taken in account ?

Answer: Yes indeed. Of our 85 included patients 44 (52%) had significant complications during surgery or while on ICU such as sepsis or a need for further surgery. The distribution of patients with significant complications after liver transplantation did not differ between the patient groups. We added the respective data to the results section of the manuscript (page 12):

“Significant complications had occurred during OLT surgery or while on the intensive care unit in 44 (52%) of 85 patients. The patients with significant complications such as a need for additional surgery, transplant failure or infection were equally distributed between the three patient groups: Eighteen (60%) of the 30 patients of the CNI standard group (number of complications: one n=12, two n=3, three or more n=3), sixteen (44%) of the 36 patients of the CNI low group (number of complications: one n=8, two n=6, three n=2) and ten (53%) of the 19 patients of the CNI free group (number of complications: one n=6, two n=2, three n=2) had had significant complications after OLT.”

- the cause of reducing the dosage of CNIs could constitute a bias. This is however discussed in discussion

- page 13, maybe a comparison to patients that underwent renal grafting and being under CNIs would have be valuable

Answer: We agree that this is an interesting aspect which, however, should be addressed in the future because, unfortunately, we did not include patients that had kidney transplantation in our study.

- page 15, there is a figure legend included in the manuscript but there is no figure

Answer: Please excuse the ambiguity. The legend of figure 1 was included after the paragraph of its first mention as demanded by the style requirements of PLOS ONE. The figure is displayed separately and not directly in the text.

- it seems that the present study constitute an ancillary study of the study previously described in ref 15. Please, if it is so, clearly explain that the patients are the same that those described in a previous study

Answer: You are correct. The patients described in this study took part in a bigger study analyzing brain functional, metabolic and microstructural alterations associated with long-term effects of treatment with different doses of CNI. To clarify this we have added a sentence to the methods section of the manuscript (page 7):

“Thus, all patients except one from the CNI-low group considered for this analysis were part of the analysis described in [15].”

- page 18, were RBANS profiles different in patients that had previous to LT bouts of hepatic encephalopathy ?

Answer: Twelve of the 85 patients (14%) had a history of HE before OLT. Patients with an HE history did not differ from those without in the RBANS except in the RBANS subdomain language. This result was added to the manuscript in the results section (page 13):

“The twelve patients (14%) with a history of HE before OLT did not differ from the patients without a history of HE (n=73) in the RBANS with the exception of the RBANS subdomain language. Here patients with HE performed significantly worse than those without (91.8±14.8 vs 101.0±11.9, p=0.02).”

This result is interesting because impairment of language is typically not a feature of hepatic encephalopathy. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as the study was not designed to compare patients based on their history of hepatic encephalopathy.

- table 2 is difficult to understand since only significant results are presented

Answer: Thank you for this advice. We have added a supplemental table 2 with all results of the two-sided t-tests for parameter values measured in patients and in controls. For table 2 we extracted significant results using p<0.05 and false-discovery rate method for correction of multiple comparison.

- "p14", "p24" "p34" are difficult to understand. Please provide are clearer way to describe this comparution: "p1v4" maybe ?

Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a “vs” between the numbers to improve the clarity.

- the figure 1 is not clear. Please add in the A part, a A1 and so on in order to be more precise

Answer: We have adjusted figure 1 accordingly.

Reviewer #2: This is a very important manuscript that describes concerning long term disorders that are secondary to immunosuppression on patients after liver transplant. Well designed study and methods are sound and clear for the results.

The only aspect that I see that is needing is the degree of liver decompensation prior to liver transplant.

Answer: Thank you for addressing this important point. Twelve of the 85 patients had an acute episode of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) with grades between 1 to 3 at the time of liver transplantation, who were distributed equally between the patient groups each containing 4 of them: CNI standard group (HE grade 1, n=2; and grade 3 n=2), CNI low-dose group (HE grade 1, n=2; grade 2, n=1, and grade 3, n=1), CNI free group (HE grade 1, n=3; and grade 3, n=1). We have added this data to table 1.

The other factor that I think is missing is the effect of decompensated liver disease in the brain and different areas of the central nervous system. If there is predisposition for this deleterious effect of the CNI in a previously injured CNS.

Answer: Thank you for addressing this important issue. We did not find significant differences of the qMRI measurements between the patients with and without a history of hepatic encephalopathy before liver transplantation. We have added this information to the results section of the manuscript (page 14):

“Patients with a history of HE before liver transplantation did not differ significantly from those without a history of HE concerning all measured qMRI data.”

Furthermore, to exclude an effect of structural brain alteration on our qMRI measurements all MRI images were checked for macroscopic brain tissue damage. If those were found, the patients were excluded from the study (page 8).

“T2 weighted images were reviewed for structural abnormalities by two senior neuroradiologists”

We would like to express our thanks for the review of our manuscript. We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed all comments made by the reviewers and the academic editor and that you will now find our manuscript acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-14760 Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Sep 2019

[EXSCINDED]

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging indicates brain tissue alterations in patients after liver transplantation

PONE-D-19-14760R1

Dear Dr. Ding,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Niels Bergsland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank to all the authors of the article. All my comments have been addressed correctly. I have no further remarks.

Nice work !

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nicolas WEISS

18 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-14760R1

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging indicates brain tissue alterations in patients after liver transplantation

Dear Dr. Ding:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Niels Bergsland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE